Romney’s banner

2012 May 10

by Tom Driscoll

On my radio this morning much of the sound was on the subject of the President’s openly stated endorsement of gay marriage. Some folks are thrilled at the news and see his announcement as enormous. Others would downplay its significance or even frame it as another politician’s “flip-flop.” But the comment that really caught my attention came from the presumptive GOP nominee for the presidential election this fall.

“This is a sensitive and tender issue,” Romney said in soft and conciliating voice, “I know there are different views on this, but my personal feeling is a that marriage is between a man and a woman.” The emphasis on the word ‘personal’ was sort of soft and sweet, cloying —almost apologetic. It was as if to say we can all have our different views and these are just mine. There followed a sound bite from a spokesman for “Log Cabin Republicans” where the gist was that the whole subject of gay marriage was somehow passe´—not really an issue anymore.

The last I heard, as I shut off the radio, was the newsman noting that Romney continues to support a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage.

Someone who oh so soothingly offers that there are many opinions on the issue of certain rights and only that his personal view is such (while at the same time supporting an effort to constitutionally ban the same rights) isn’t engaged in the debate. He’s evading it.

Actually, no. Obama favored civil unions in 2004; Romney doesn’t. Obama never favored putting marriage discrimination into the Constitution. And as far as we know, Obama never led a prep school gang in harassing a gay student, holding him to the floor and cutting his hair because it was too gay.

Oh, okay. And Obama was for repeal of DOMA and didn’t think marriage was between a man and a woman. I’ll even bet Obama held down his basketball coach and threatened to leave the team if the coach didn’t support gay marriage. Heck, he probably threatened to leave Reverend Wright’s congregation if the reverend didn’t defend gay marriage and the repeal of DOMA.

Sounds to me that you’re trying to change the meaning of Romney’s very simple message. What I heard is that he still defines marrikage as between one man and woman exactly the same as Jesus stated. I think what’s missing in your commentary is that Romney will stick to the issue of Obama’s poor performance as his opposition and will not be trapped into making gay marriage a real contentious issue. There are still two points of view and Americans can choose their own definition.

Democrats should support gay marriage because it is the right thing to do for them. Republicans should support gay marriage because government should have no role in defining contractual relationships, and it should, therefore, be the right thing to do. I don’t understand a Republican platform that calls for the demise of government and the refurbishing of the contract state, which then tries to demand what kind of contracts people should be allowed to have. The Republicans need to get smart on this one.

Part of the issue with Romney is wrapped up, at least for me, in the Talking Heads reference I tried to impart with the image. Not just that Romney’s “Stopped Making Sense” —there’s also something of that shrill panic David Byrne could project in performance back in the day —so often about that disassociation from one’s own voice. ‘Say something once, why say it again?’

Romney often comes off as just a bit annoyed when challenged and asked to explain the contradictions and reversals he makes, sometimes within the same sentence. ‘Making Sense’ of all this stuff he is just saying just seems to strike him as a burdensome chore, something he should be able to hire someone else to take care of maybe. As such he ends up saying he could understand the different takes and state so consolingly that these were just his “personal” views (which he wants imposed by virtue of a constitutional amendment).

As Byrne would say “Que’st que c’est?”

Honestly, I can handle someone who openly and forcefully disagrees with me a lot better.

It seems that not only have Barack Obama’s opinions on homosexual marriage “evolved”, but also has his Christian faith. In his interview with Rick Warren while he was running for president, he was quite certain that marriage was a union between a man and a woman and he mentioned that it was because of his “Christian” faith that he held this belief. The audience applauded, and I suspect it was the response he expected, knowing it was made up largely of Christians. Obama knows exactly what to say in any particular instance.

His beliefs on homosexual marriages have evolved dramatically, yet he has not explained how his faith has also evolved. Evidently his belief in God is determined by whatever is popular at any given time. I believe that type of religion is called Hypocrisy and Obama is a devout hypocrite, whose faith is evident in every move, every decision he makes.

Others “flip-flop” but Obama, devout hypocrite, “evolves.” Especially when his liberal Hollywood pals are willing to fork over $40,000 each in order to make certain he continues to take our country down the drain. Evidently this “Christian” man has never read that part in the Bible where it says, “What does it profit a man if he wins the whole world but loses his soul.”

I know a lot of Christians who support equal rights for their gay brothers and sisters, Jennie. Obama cited the golden rule as an important part of his Christian thinking on the subject. At least he’s quoting Jesus. When did Jesus say anything condemning homosexuality?

I’d say a hypocrite is someone who pretends to Christian love, but condemns other Christians because of the gender of their love.

Public opinion has evolved on the issue of gays and gay marriage, so I don’t see anything hypocritical in Obama’s views evolving at the same time. During the interview he made note that this daughters go to school with kids from non-traditional families, and they don’t see anything odd about that, and that helped him with his thoughts. Someone like Dick Cheney may have gotten there more quickly because they had a child who was gay, but the nation is quickly embracing this diversity.

I’m glad Obama had the guts to state his opinion publicly.

Stephen Colbert talked about this last night – the whole clip is good, but start around 1:30 to see Colbert’s take on what Jesus thought about homosexuality:

I have some gay relatives. When I lived in New York (yes, I’ll admit it) I knew quite a few gay guys, went out with them now and then, which was kind of unusual at times, but no big deal. I went to college and business school with gay guys. Even out here in the suburbs I know some gay people, although they seem more toned down and fewer and farther between than what you find in the city. So I think I know a little about the gay community.

In my experience, the absolutely last two things on a gay guy’s list is joining the army and getting married. Which makes perfect sense, I guess. Because those two things are the absolute top priorities among the Washington politicians who want to help out.

Times change, and there are exceptions to every rule. Here’s an interview, for instance, with a gay marine who, on returning from Afghanistan, proposed to his Navy vet boyfriend:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGA5D5Ett9M

I think it’s great that marriage and military service are legal now for gays. It’s fair. It’s right. From a practical standpoint, though, if the Government banned gays from living in Fairbanks Alaska from December to February each year, I doubt that many people would care. Pretty much the same thing with these issues, from what I can tell.

Rick, rather than try to defend my objection to homosexuality, I’ll let St. Paul, in the book of Romans N.T. Chapter 1, verses 24-27 do that. He felt rather strongly about it and I doubt he would hold a position other than Jesus Christ. The Bible considers homosexuality a sin, one that can be forgiven just as any other sin. But it does not condone it and any Christian, whether a layperson or someone in the clergy, who defends it is saying that God has it wrong. Your argument is not with me, but with the Creator Himself.

My argument is that the definition of the word “marriage” is the union of one man and one woman. It is not my personal opinion that matters, nor yours, nor anyone else’s. It’s what the word “marriage” means that’s important. One’s personal opinion should not be the criteria for re-defining a word that has meant one thing for centuries just to satisfy the so-called needs of one particular group of people. Why not start re-defining words wholesale? Why not confuse the language so much that no one understands what anyone means anymore?

To say now that the sexual union of two men or two women can also be called “marriage,” is to strip the word of all meaning. No one seriously objects to two men (or two women) living together in a loving, sexual relationship, much less I, who have two very good friends in that situation.

It’s calling that relationship “marriage” that I object to. Why not let that word be reserved for two people, a man and a woman who want to be joined in the sacred bond we have called “marriage” for centuries? Why not use another word, other than “marriage,” to describe the relationship of two men or two women?

Surely, the reasons homosexuals state for wanting to call their relationship “marriage” can be resolved in other ways. And I believe that process has already begun in some cases. In other words, privileges that are given to married people will also be extended to homosexuals who are in a committed relationship.

What is wrong with calling their relationships “civil unions” or “domestic relationships?” Or whatever else they choose to call it.

This would make usurping the word “marriage” unnecessary. I believe this would be a better solution, rather than amending the Constitution to affirm that the definition of marriage is the “union between one man and one woman.” We shouldn’t have to make legal a tradition that has survived for centuries.

First, if I recall my Sunday School teachings, Paul was not Jesus. Paul never met Jesus. Nor is Paul the Creator. My disagreement is with Paul, and homosexuality isn’t the only disagreement I have with him. Look up what he had to say about slavery.

Second, I don’t buy this “definition” stuff either. My marriage vows said nothing about a man and a woman. It very explicitly said “till death do us part.” Considering the divorce rate, I’d say the “definition of marriage” is very much up to interpretation. I choose to interpret it to give my gay friends and your gay friends the opportunity to make their covenant of marriage as meaningful and respected as mine.

“For God is not a God of disorder but of peace —as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

Another instance of this fundamental disconnect between what he’s saying and reality: Romney appeared on a radio program after reports about his “youthful hijinks” came out the other day. Rick alludes to the story above. Apparently it’s reported that back in his school days Romney led an attack on a fellow student whose hairstyle and effeminate manner he and his droogs didn’t approve of. The young man was chased down, held to the floor and forcibly sheared of his locks by Romney and a group of his closest thugs. Romney was the scissor man. Asked if he was essentially gay bashing back in the day, Romney responded: “I had no idea what this individual’s sexual orientation might be” —then approximately thirteen seconds later: “I don’t recall the incident.”

The President was for gay marriage in 1996 or so. When it was convenient to be against it and against the repeal of DOMA, as in when he ran for the Senate in 2003/2004 he was against it. Now he is for it, but not so much for it that he is going to propose any legislation that would require him to stick his neck out. As they would say in A Few Good Men, those are the facts and they are indisputable. It isn’t an evolution. It is a full circle, taking about 16 years. He and Romney are two peas in a pod.

Obama was for it then against then for it. 16 years full circle. Mitt was for it, then against it. He has come for it again, but he may not have reached the 16 year cycle. Don’t know the timeline but given opportunity to be elected President, just like the opportunist Obama at every point along the way, Romney would probably come full circle also.

I don’t fault either of them for evolving views. What’s interesting from my perspective is that Obama has an ability and an actual interest in explaining his evolution, whereas the tendency with Romney —and not just on this issue— is to insist ‘no-no-this is what I’ve been saying all along'(except when he wants to imply he’s not actually saying it). What’s of immediate substance, entirely aside from the personalities in contest, is that one has stated sympathy for a set of rights that another has said he would ban by constitutional amendment.

Precision, as I said to Nancy. One has sympathy for an action that he thinks should be defined as a right (and he is not apparently going to work for that right recognition at the federal level where it the only place it will have the kind of meaningful consequence and enforcement such a right would bring), and one believes that action should not be defined as a right (and has promised to work at the federal level to make sure it is not defined as a right). Once the action is defined as a right, the battle is over. You’ve accepted the action as a right. There are many people of a different ideology who do not accept it as a right. For each side, there is no room in the inn for the other.

In the interest of precision, I think it fair to say there are people of both camps who are of the rigid mindset you mention, but I do believe there are others who seek to find some balance of perspective based in understanding and respect. I think a lot of the confused contention has something to do with the strange weight given governance and politics as an arbiter of meaning, and as with a lot of these questions there is some complexity and contradiction involved. There are ideologues (if you’ll excuse the expression) who revile government and government intrusion of any sort, who at the same time invest this question of how government defines marriage for the sake of its own policies with enormous personal meaning and significance. I suppose you would say that’s true from both sides of the question. It is odd just the same.

I suppose we all do have to find our own balance. I am simply glad of what Obama said and a little irked by Romney’s approach to this question. There’s some personal animus there, I’ll admit. I like that Obama framed his thinking in his own personal understanding of Christian message. I pray in a church that doesn’t agree, that doesn’t respect every right or even hold every truth I hold as truth, but I still pray there. I don’t storm out in objection (as we so often see advised as the only decent course in blogs like this one). Maybe that’s my lack of moral courage, but I do appreciate some instructive experience that comes of bringing my own struggles and arguments to a place where they quiet and abide beside others. Where there is a sense of Truth that is great, larger than all, but never quite grasped so firmly as to be owned by any one of us.

We both know the score on gay marriage. Not too long ago it was taboo for a politician to support the goals of homosexuals. Today there is an effort to make it seem that most of the nation is pro gay marriage. This is simply not so as evidenced by so many states banning gay marriage. It bothers me that as a supporter of hetero or real marriage I am accused of not being fair. I suppose it’s alright for gays to throw used condoms at people in St. Patricks church to demonstrate their “rights.” I do support the idea that people can do whatever they want within the boundaries of law abiding practices. I for one am sick and tired of being referred to as a homophobic creature when I could strike back with a number of appelations not fit for print.The issue is not important enough at least for me to be able to turn an election. Keep up your Christian faith and continue to do what’s right.

Comments are closed.

About this blog:

Holmes & Co. is a Blog for Independent Minds, a place for a free-flowing discussion of politics, policy, news and opinion.

This blog is the online cousin of the Opinion section of the MetroWest Daily News. As such, our focus starts in the MetroWest/495 area and spreads from there to include Massachusetts, the nation and the world. You'll also find here lots of cross-referencing to columns and editorials in the MetroWest Daily News.

The blog presents an opportunity for readers to comment directly and immediately on pieces that appear on the print pages.